BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
That is a cartoonStevo_666 said:
Hence the strategy of many financial institutions of putting the minimum substance needed to do business in Europe while maintaining London as the main base or HQ. I would think that after a while your Euro business will go down a bit once the adjustments have been made.rick_chasey said:The burden is trying to do business with EU customers when not based in the EU.
Pension investing reform is nothing to do with Brexit.
Legal & General, and their investment arm LGIM, have next to zero presence on the continent; indeed, the efforts to build a sales team on the continent were scrapped when the head of sales went elsewhere.
So colour me surprised that the L&G boss is not concerned with international business.
The regulation he most often complains about is the greenbelt; which flies against his main calling later in life which is investing in regenerating areas and building housing (using L&G balance sheet money, I should add).
https://www.legalandgeneralcapital.com/our-investment-approach/future-cities/urban-regeneration/
https://www.legalandgeneralcapital.com/our-investment-approach/housing/
This Alex cartoon sums it up quite well.
The reality is that the EU are forcing institutions to transfer thousands of jobs, which when they are such high salaries is quickly worth billions.
I wonder whether the UK has lived off the riches of the City for so long that it has become blase. It is easy to understand why the EU and individual member countries have their eye on our golden goose. Why we are so mehh about it is baffling.0 -
The risk profile of the investment should match that of the individual / scheme members.rick_chasey said:
I mean, plenty of other pension funds do that in other countries, right?surrey_commuter said:
But you do have a horse in the race. Your pension provider could be forced to put a % of their fund into early stage start ups.rick_chasey said:I have no horse in that race and don’t know enough about it but why do North American firms find scaling up beyond VC so easy versus the UK, and why do growth UK firms leave the UK to go get funding?
There is an access-to-capital problem in UK growth companies. That’s I think the problem they’re trying to address
I want to know what your specific objection is, because it happens elsewhere outside of the UK regularly.
Start up investing is right at the top of the risk scale, and only appropriate for a small proportion of people, for a small proportion of their wealth.
It is not suitable for your average pension investor.0 -
My understanding is that the pension funds who do this are the mega public sector ones like the Canadian teachers. Unlike us this is not pay as you go they are fully funded and as it is still open it has a funding horizon of several decades syretching to over a centuryrick_chasey said:
I mean, plenty of other pension funds do that in other countries, right?surrey_commuter said:
But you do have a horse in the race. Your pension provider could be forced to put a % of their fund into early stage start ups.rick_chasey said:I have no horse in that race and don’t know enough about it but why do North American firms find scaling up beyond VC so easy versus the UK, and why do growth UK firms leave the UK to go get funding?
There is an access-to-capital problem in UK growth companies. That’s I think the problem they’re trying to address
I want to know what your specific objection is, because it happens elsewhere outside of the UK regularly.
A an example our DB scheme closed to new members in 2003 and shut in 2020, this means that it is winding down and not in a position to make investments that have a maturity measured in decades.
My target retirement date is 6 years from now, why would I want any of my retirement funds tied up in infrastructure projects with a payback after i am dead?
As a believer in free markets I think that if this was a good idea then people would offer it and people would buy it.
A bunch of big statists have shot the economy in the foot and are thrashing around for ways in which the state can intervene to make it better again0 -
I think the current regs make it very difficult for UK pensions to invest in this way. So I don't think it's fair to say "if there was a market for it they'd invest in it"0
-
Self-invested pensions aren't restricted in the same way, but even so, I don't think many pension investors have much exposure to anything beyond overseas equities.rick_chasey said:I think the current regs make it very difficult for UK pensions to invest in this way. So I don't think it's fair to say "if there was a market for it they'd invest in it"
0 -
I think it's just a case where the ruling party has seen an opposition idea and gone, we can't just pinch it, we'll have to make it more extreme.
0 -
I can totally believe this.
0 -
I know it is, that's why I said it sums up the point.surrey_commuter said:
That is a cartoonStevo_666 said:
Hence the strategy of many financial institutions of putting the minimum substance needed to do business in Europe while maintaining London as the main base or HQ. I would think that after a while your Euro business will go down a bit once the adjustments have been made.rick_chasey said:The burden is trying to do business with EU customers when not based in the EU.
Pension investing reform is nothing to do with Brexit.
Legal & General, and their investment arm LGIM, have next to zero presence on the continent; indeed, the efforts to build a sales team on the continent were scrapped when the head of sales went elsewhere.
So colour me surprised that the L&G boss is not concerned with international business.
The regulation he most often complains about is the greenbelt; which flies against his main calling later in life which is investing in regenerating areas and building housing (using L&G balance sheet money, I should add).
https://www.legalandgeneralcapital.com/our-investment-approach/future-cities/urban-regeneration/
https://www.legalandgeneralcapital.com/our-investment-approach/housing/
This Alex cartoon sums it up quite well.
The reality is that the EU are forcing institutions to transfer thousands of jobs, which when they are such high salaries is quickly worth billions.
I wonder whether the UK has lived off the riches of the City for so long that it has become blase. It is easy to understand why the EU and individual member countries have their eye on our golden goose. Why we are so mehh about it is baffling.
It was always the case that there would be some transfer to satisfy minimum substance requirements, but the predicted mass transfers of FS activity and 'the banks leaving' have not happened. However I think we need to make sure that we maintain our position by being less onerously regulated and taxed than on the continent."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because you want to?rick_chasey said:I can totally believe this.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
One privilege of my job is I get a lot of data points on what people are paid in the industry I cover. And you can see the shift, and it's accelerated since covid.Stevo_666 said:
Because you want to?rick_chasey said:I can totally believe this.
0 -
Having access to info on the pay and benefit levels in my line of work, London still seems pretty competitive.rick_chasey said:
One privilege of my job is I get a lot of data points on what people are paid in the industry I cover. And you can see the shift, and it's accelerated since covid.Stevo_666 said:
Because you want to?rick_chasey said:I can totally believe this.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean, sterling devaluation in 2016 alone has had a pretty big impact, but beyond that, the gap London had is shrinking all the time.
So I can full well believe in industries were the UK has less of a stranglehold, like Telcos, I can imagine it getting pretty uncompetitive (after cost of living remember!) pretty quickly.0 -
Quite.rick_chasey said:
....
So I can full well believe in industries were the UK has less of a stranglehold, like Telcos, I can imagine it getting pretty uncompetitive (after cost of living remember!) pretty quickly.
The bottom line everyone should consider is disposable income, not top line figures.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
With the pound at its current value, a grad mechanical engineer for the Californian based company I consult with will out earn the vast majority of experienced engineers in the final years of their career.rick_chasey said:I mean, sterling devaluation in 2016 alone has had a pretty big impact, but beyond that, the gap London had is shrinking all the time.
So I can full well believe in industries were the UK has less of a stranglehold, like Telcos, I can imagine it getting pretty uncompetitive (after cost of living remember!) pretty quickly.
The growth of international consultancy is great and all, but it is the story of a country that's potentially sort of transformed itself into a cheap offshore outsourcing hub...0 -
Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
That it’s a lot less than it used to be?TheBigBean said:
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
You don't need to pay a premium a live in Londonrick_chasey said:
That it’s a lot less than it used to be?TheBigBean said:
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
Isn't Rick's world dealing with reasonably mature hires? Would have thought many of the exiting bits of London are less of a pull when you have a family.TheBigBean said:
You don't need to pay a premium a live in Londonrick_chasey said:
That it’s a lot less than it used to be?TheBigBean said:
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
People earning less is not a good thing.TheBigBean said:
You don't need to pay a premium a live in Londonrick_chasey said:
That it’s a lot less than it used to be?TheBigBean said:
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
I can only speak for myself, but I like it.Jezyboy said:
Isn't Rick's world dealing with reasonably mature hires? Would have thought many of the exiting bits of London are less of a pull when you have a family.TheBigBean said:
You don't need to pay a premium a live in Londonrick_chasey said:
That it’s a lot less than it used to be?TheBigBean said:
So no premium to live in London. What's not to like about that?rick_chasey said:Sure. London used to be between 40-80% higher than the continent in my world.
Now it’s about 20-25% and after cost of living it’s roughly flat.0 -
I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
1 -
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.
And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.
Apart from that, you might have a point.1 -
Do you think the Conservatives have been honest with the electorate?Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.0 -
That's irrelevant to this point.veronese68 said:
Do you think the Conservatives have been honest with the electorate?Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This goes against the principle that a government shouldn't bind its successor.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.
And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.
Apart from that, you might have a point.
Also, the government spent a lot of money sending everyone a letter explaining what leaving would mean.0 -
Two wrongs etc.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.
And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.
Apart from that, you might have a point.
And it doesn't change the point that the EU deliberately increased its scope and reach bit by bit to minimise resistance. Take each of the initiatives that were voted on in isolation and they probably look pretty innocuous, but add them all up and you can see what the game is.
Oh, and let's not forget the episodes where some of these treaties were rejected by certain electorates, who were then invited to vote again until they got the 'right' answer."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
uk was free to vetoStevo_666 said:
Two wrongs etc.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.
And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.
Apart from that, you might have a point.
And it doesn't change the point that the EU deliberately increased its scope and reach bit by bit to minimise resistance. Take each of the initiatives that were voted on in isolation and they probably look pretty innocuous, but add them all up and you can see what the game is.
Oh, and let's not forget the episodes where some of these treaties were rejected by certain electorates, who were then invited to vote again until they got the 'right' answer.
it didn't
democracy in action
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I think history has taught us that these decisions did not bind successor governments.TheBigBean said:
This goes against the principle that a government shouldn't bind its successor.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....briantrumpet said:I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.
I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.
Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.
And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.
Apart from that, you might have a point.
Also, the government spent a lot of money sending everyone a letter explaining what leaving would mean.0
